anaVal

Except tidal. That one comes from the moon.

No need to apologise for both taking your time and your assumptions:

• I don't expect people to be online and answer immediately. I know I wouldn't be if I had any way to express my anarchism outside of this. and sometimes you need to take your time and think about what's been said.
• We all make assumptions when talking with people online. It's easy to make wrong ones, especially in text as you cannot have the other person immediately respond and correct you.

I appear to have run out of things to say as I don't really wish to delve into the situation in america. Just hope you stay safe.

It's been fun talking to you. May we meet again.

My main reason is ideological. Why should I waste my precious time working in a job that doesn't advance my goals of creating a freer society? while also making pennies for some shareholder at the top? on top of that I get bored of doing the same thing over and over again. I want my work to have more variance.

And I guess while being truly international is kinda difficult it seems that it's a lot easier within the EU and USA.

I've reached that point where I'm good at programming but require to explain my ideas to someone or I just give up because it seems like too much effort for no benefit. So even someone who doesn't really know any programming but can listen and think along would be a important.

That final sentence really made me laugh. Thank you. You have such a fun way of talking. I really like how frequently you use ellipses to give pauses. They really work.

I'm not that serious about religion. I wasn't raised religious and have spent most of my life not really thinking about it. The anarchy as religion think is more just playing with thoughts. Approach ideas from angles that aren't usual and see what you come up with.

Thinking about it more I think the main reason why I've started trusting more in anarchism as a faith than a process is that I live in an environment where anarchist thought really isn't spread. I'm pretty isolated and so it's hard to trust in it as something real because I don't see it anywhere but through the computer. I guess Isolation really is the cause of faith.

But thinking about it further what I consider faith is really not baseless. As it is just "anarchy can exist if people try hard enough". And that's not baseless. pre-archy^1^ was pretty much the same as anarchy and many anarchist project have been incredibly successful. But does that mean that it's not faith and rather a rational belief? And is that difference really that important when most of humanity would say that anarchy is naive and impossible? Making it seem like the belief that people can work together without oppressing each other is just blind faith.

^1^: All of the societies that existed before being invaded by a "civilisation".

At the end of the day what is and isn't rational is entirely based on the information you have available to you. I imagine there were times that prospect of democracy seemed like blind faith.

And I have no concerns about your beliefs. They seem really solid and nice. I'm just here to discuss a topic I've thought about recently.

oh also: "No Gods, No Kings, No Masters, No chains except the ones we choose ourselves."

Well said.

I actually accidentally submitted my previous comment but because it wasn't really that cut off and I wanted to get started with other stuff so I left it.

I think the primary reason I think of anarchism as faith is that christians often say they have faith in god and that they believe everything that happens is part of his grand plan. To which I have made the anarchist counter of I don't need to believe in god, I believe in people. That through working together we can create wonderful things and that we don't need some omnipotent force to guide our movements. Both the evil and the good in this world is nothing but actions of people rippling through time. And I believe that most people are good.

It's this weird way of looking all of this theory through a religious lens, but I find it gives me a lot of hope, which is the point of faith. It is dumb and kinda blind, but also very comforting.

I think all ideology is faith based. At the end of the day your ideology is based on some fundamental beliefs that you hold. And holding these beliefs even when evidence points to the contrary. I think of anarchism as a faith. A faith that there is a world worth fighting for. That people are kind. That it's possible to dismantle these systems of oppression that have seeped into every facet of our society and culture.

Yeah. You're right. There couldn't really be that hard of a line between citizens and non-citizens. And because the hierarchy wouldn't really be based on violence and more just deferring of skill and effort it wouldn't really be a hierarchy at all.

But I still think that having anarchist-friendly states is possible. Maybe by having a border that can get moved as the demographics change or through territories voting to join either the anarchist side or the state side.

Top down management structure. You still have a person or a group of people who command different branches like Education, Transport, Healthcare, Emergency response, Recourse allocation (water, food, electricity), Construction/Maintenance (Basically ministries). All of these are organised the same as they are in states. Top down. Vertical. Except at any point you can renounce your citizenship in which case none the benefits and responsibilities apply to you.

Oh yeah forgot to write that company means any grouping of Individuals with the purpose of engaging in the economy. It's a very general definition and doesn't necessarily require money.

But to answer your question. Nothing. Because participation is voluntary if you don't wish to be part of this "state" then you cannot be forced. The idea is there to be a space for those who want to be part of a state.

Actually It's very likely that if you allow people to create these voluntary bureaucracies then every party will probably create their own.

I used country because I couldn't use state as "without the threat of violence it is no longer a state."

Isn't anarchy specifically managed bottom up? What if this state still has elections, government, ministries, state-run education and the like? Would that still be anarchy? I wouldn't call it anarchy, I'd call it minarchy. Because by being voluntary it is fundamentally minimising it's authority.

Borders and land ownership would be dynamic. If a citizen lives on a piece of land or citizens manage a company that land and company become part of the state. As soon as the people/companies move the border moves as well.

Fitting money into a minarchist state is tricky as even if participating in the state is voluntary money could still be exchanged outside of it. Unless you make the state currency digital and ensure that those who revoke their citizenship also lose access to their funds, but that's probably going to create a secondary "unofficial" currency. money is tricky.

And does a state need to have an elite? If the minarchist party is comprised of influential and trusted community figures that are focused solely on the benefit of their community would that make them an elite? Could a state function with a benevolent elite?

I guess all of this is describing less of a state and more of a voluntary elected bureaucracy. But isn't that what minarchy is? And couldn't we transition a state to that?

So what do you call a country that has voluntary membership and community policing? One that doesn't have a police force or a justice system and is instead maintained by the will of all of it's citizens, as those who don't wish to be a part of the country can just leave.